Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Overgeeked]

From the io9 article:

The show will premiere in January 2017 with a preview episode on CBS and then, in the U.S., move exclusively to the CBS video on-demand and streaming service, CBS All Access. It’ll be the first developed specifically for the CBS streaming service.

Internationally, the show will “be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms.”

Damn. That sound terrible. But hey, capitalism. Cash in on the hardcore fans while they're still breathing.

 

[Spot's Meow]

This is great news! I'm not a huge fan of the new Trek movies, but the TV format is different and so it's hard to say what a series based on the new universe would look like. Also, it's far off enough that I see no point in discounting it before we even have details. I will remain optimistic!

As for the streaming-only plan, it's an interesting move. It could be really good for the series (increased budget, more liberties with storytelling, not held to typical Nielson standards for whether it will be renewed) or not so great (they get small subscription numbers leading to a belief that Trek isn't relevant anymore, quick cancellation). I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I already subscribe to CBS All Access, as I don't have cable and I am a Big Brother live feeds fanatic in the summer months. I also enjoy the service for watching older seasons of shows that I didn't catch the first time around. I'll happily continue subscribing for some new Trek. I just hope they don't raise prices too much.

 

[BillJ]

From the io9 article:

The show will premiere in January 2017 with a preview episode on CBS and then, in the U.S., move exclusively to the CBS video on-demand and streaming service, CBS All Access. It’ll be the first developed specifically for the CBS streaming service.

Internationally, the show will “be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms.”

Damn. That sound terrible. But hey, capitalism. Cash in on the hardcore fans while they're still breathing.

So CBS shouldn't try new distribution channels?

 

[Admiral Bear]

I'll admit my initial reaction was the following:

CBS spent millions on remastering TNG on Blu-ray, a project which probably didn't even break even.

CBS refuses, even just to safeguard the material for posterity, to remaster DS9 in HD.

Yet, CBS is willing to throw its money at a new Trek TV series which will only be shown on subscription streaming. It really beggars belief. Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

Interest in Star Trek in the US amongst the general population seems to be on the wane, and has been since before Enterprise was cancelled. I think the poster with the Cookie Monster avatar has already alluded to that somewhere on this thread. Apologies if it was someone else.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Then I'm not watching.

On the Star Trek OS press release it says they are returning to the storytelling of old. Social themes, etc. Well, I can't say how much faith I have in that with a clown like Kurtzman on board. THis guy doesn't know Star Trek or understand the fans at all. He only understands a section of them, and the division in fandom caused by the reboot, especially Into Darkness, is a testament to that.

That's very well put.

I know that people can't kill themselves stressing over how to make a new movie or show.... but couldn't Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci have navigated the currents a little better than to utterly divide the fanbase?

I'm sure Trek could have been popular AND faithful.

Just look at how this has been done with so many other properties. Did anyone truly expect that a film as nerdy as "The Martian" would ever be made, or that the "Lord of the Rings" would ever be so faithfully adapted, or that an unrepentant space western like "Guardians of the Galaxy" would break the box office, or that "The Avengers" would be so true to Marvel? Did they really have to butcher the characters as much as they did, with unprofessional arguments on the bridge, hyperactive pacing, etc? Surely both could have been satisfied, and Trek could have been done at a dignified pace like say "Interstellar"?

Thank you! Another who gets it. So much for people like you being a myth.

Intelligent, relevant storytelling, of the kind that those of us who don't just come to Trek for spaceships and explosions enjoy, could have easily been a part of the JJverse movies just as much as those films have lots of fancy SFX for the non-fan cinemagoer.

I loathe this attitude from some fans that if you don't worship at the feet of Abrams & Co that somehow means you are some old fuddy duddy lost in days gone by. No, it just means we come to the franchise for different reasons.

No, Trek is capable of being fun, exciting AND intelligent. The idea that a well made Trek cannot unite the fanbase is a myth.

I think perhaps the problem with the 2009 reboot was this:

To truly be faithful to a given work of fiction, you need to understand, believe in and respect it's philosophical ideals - I might not necessarily agree with George Lucas, but I understand his "Buddhist-Baptist", "Jungian/Campbellian" philosophy behind Star Wars and can respect it - I don't feel like Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci really ever accepted the philosophical premise of Star Trek (which is a bald-faced and unrepentant argument in favor of rationalism, intellect and humanist values).

There was instead a kind of "lets all make fun of Star Trek, that wacky show" attitude behind some of the humor; not really an acceptance of the material (as say in Peter Jackson's acceptance of Tolkien's work), instead it came off as being a little bit of an unloving repackaging.

Or as author China Mieville put it:

"I've never met [JJ Abrams]. I am not a member of his fan club or anti-fan club. I disliked Cloverfield a very great deal. I disliked Star Trek intensely. I thought it was terrible. And I think part of my problem is that I feel like the relationship between JJ Abrams' projects and geek culture is one of relatively unloving repackaging - sort of cynical. I taste contempt in the air. Now I'm not a child - I know that all big scifi projects are suffused with the contempt of big money for its own target audience. But there's something about [JJ's projects] that makes me particularly uncomfortable. As compared to somebody like Joss Whedon, who - even when there are misfires - I feel likes me and loves me and is on some cultural level my brother and comrade. And I don't feel that way about JJ Abrams."

Likewise, I'm not anti-Abrams or anything; he has done some interesting stuff - I just question whether he was right for Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

By all means, please show us proof of this.

Likewise, I'm not anti-Abrams or anything; he has done some interesting stuff - I just question whether he was right for Star Trek.

The box office returns, contrary to what the bear above me wrote, prove that he was. Do you seriously think CBS would even be creating this new show if the nuTrek movies were a failure?

Oh, and I don't give a fuck what China Mieville thinks about anything.

 

[Vanyel]

I don't hate the Abrams movies. They're certainly more whizz-bang and actiony (and I think it's fair to say 'dumbed-down'), but they're enjoyable for what they are and they do keep the core of the characters intact, and to an extent of Trek itself.
[cut out a lot]

Still would've liked to see Captain Worf, though

Enjoyable is not good. Enjoyable is forgettable.

It'll be a new cast, new ship, the NUiverse too.

 

[Squiggy]

Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

It was the #11 movie of the year.

I'm sure CBS is willing to roll the dice on it.

 

[BillJ]

Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

By all means, please show us proof of this.

Likewise, I'm not anti-Abrams or anything; he has done some interesting stuff - I just question whether he was right for Star Trek.

The box office returns, contrary to what the bear above me wrote, prove that he was. Do you seriously think CBS would even be creating this new show if the nuTrek movies were a failure?

He doesn't have any proof. Into Darkness ranked 11th in US box office (for 2013) at $228 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013

 

[Overgeeked]

So CBS shouldn't try new distribution channels?

The stupid. It burns.

 

[Khan444]

I think that people wildly overstate how "divided" the fanbase truly is. Anyway, Trek does tend to work better on TV, if you're going to do the more hardcore sci-fi route.

 

[Dukhat]

I think that people wildly overstate how "divided" the fanbase truly is.

QFT.

 

[Karzak]

I love the nerdrage that all of you are getting bent out of shape over the fact that this will only be available via a paid streaming service, and bitching about how you're being taken advantage of. As if Paramount and CBS haven't been fleecing you since 1966. How many times has TOS been released and re-released on home video? How many of you were incensed when all the special features were split across the various versions of Into Darkness?

In short - get over it. This is nothing new.

What *is* new is that we're getting a new TV series, which is where I think many of us feel Trek has always excelled. Why can't you just be damn happy about that?

 

[Scout101]

It'll be a new cast, new ship, the Nuverse too.

So what? Personally, I'm sick to death of reboots and retellings. Perfectly ok with a new ship and crew. Move it up or down the timeline and call the ship Enterprise, or stick in the same vicinity and just pick another ship/crew, all fine with me.

Kirk and Spock are great, my favorite crew. But plenty of room to do something different; maybe we'll like that too? Plenty of people that seem to enjoy Picard, Sisko, even Janeway or Archer, so aren't they glad we went in new directions and didn't just retell TOS 4 more times? It's a big sandbox, go play.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Not that the movie side of things is anything to do with CBS, but someone needs to tell the suits that compared to Star Trek 2009, Into Darkness was on the verge of stinking out the US box office.

By all means, please show us proof of this.

Likewise, I'm not anti-Abrams or anything; he has done some interesting stuff - I just question whether he was right for Star Trek.

The box office returns, contrary to what the bear above me wrote, prove that he was. Do you seriously think CBS would even be creating this new show if the nuTrek movies were a failure?

Oh, and I don't give a fuck what China Mieville thinks about anything.

Well, box office revenues don't always equal merit - if they did, endless Michael Bay type films wouldn't earn billions, and have consistently awful critical ratings.

I think we can move past the box office argument, because it's a very tired way of dismissing fair criticism - many other auteurs may have been equally, or more, successful.

 

[JoeZhang]

Is it true the first episode features Captain Garth being shot in the fact with a space-uzi? Heard a rumour.

 

[Squiggy]

I love the nerdrage that all of you are getting bent out of shape over the fact that this will only be available via a paid streaming service, and bitching about how you're being taken advantage of. As if Paramount and CBS haven't been fleecing you since 1966. How many times has TOS been released and re-released on home video? How many of you were incensed when all the special features were split across the various versions of Into Darkness?

In short - get over it. This is nothing new.

What *is* new is that we're getting a new TV series, which is where I think many of us feel Trek has always excelled. Why can't you just be damn happy about that?

Syndicated Star Trek? That will never work!

 

[Samurai8472]

Conflicted on the streaming plan. I interpret it as not being confident enough to launch on the big boy TV network, but the plus side is that it probably won't be held to the monster standard and quickly cancelled if it gets lower numbers. Streaming likely more forgiving there.
.

Somewhere there was a shift in thinking that "Star Trek" would be better in syndication than try to survive on a big network.

Which is odd since it started on CBS as a prime time show.

So from 1987 to 2004 nobody had confidence in it?

Now here we are with it being shown online only.

 

[BillJ]

What *is* new is that we're getting a new TV series, which is where I think many of us feel Trek has always excelled. Why can't you just be damn happy about that?

One can't truly call one's self a fan unless they show psychotic rage over the merest hint of something being new and different.

 

[thumbtack]

The official press release specifically says that it is not connected in any way to the nuTrek films.

I'm not seeing what the canon enthusiasts have been reading into this statement. A post-Voyager spinoff aimed at middle-aged males?

No.

I already subscribe to CBS All Access.

How do you find it? Especially technologically? No pauses or jumps? Responsive customer service?